CBS’s Latest Socialism Sales Pitch: ‘Maybe You Can Be Too Rich’

Newsbusters.org ^ | 1/25/2022 1421 hrs et | Kyle Drennan

[rktman]

“A recent report reveals the world’s nearly 3,000 billionaires increased their wealth by $5 trillion last year....Which prompts Mark Whitaker to ask: When is more than enough, enough?,” host Jane Pauley announced at the top of the segment. Whitaker went on to warn viewers: “The wealth gap has reached stratospheric levels. The richest one percent of Americans now has almost 13 times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent. It’s led some to consider: Maybe you can be too rich.”

He turned to a far-left, European philosophy professor to explain her socialist ideology of seizing wealth by giving it a new name: “Professor Ingrid Robeyns teaches philosophy and ethics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. She’s been promoting a concept called limitarianism. Define limitarianism.”

Robeyns lectured: “So limitarianism is just the word for the thought that there should be a moral limit to how much wealth you can accumulate. So it’s the idea that it’s fine to be well off, but at some point one has too much.”

After noting that she was “talking mainly about the really rich,” Whitaker wailed: “Robeyns believes the case against the super rich isn’t just moral; it’s also environmental. From the profits of businesses that haven’t paid for polluting the atmosphere to the emissions from mega mansions and private planes, and the unused dollars just sitting in offshore accounts.”

The radical professor argued private fortunes should be confiscated to combat climate change:

[rktman]

Hmmmm. I wonder if obxxx has reached his level yet. You know the 'Sooner or later you have enough money' point.

[Yo-Yo]

OK, let’s start by confiscating all of George Soros’ assets.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

“A recent report reveals the world’s nearly 3,000 billionaires increased their wealth by $5 trillion last year....Which prompts Mark Whitaker to ask: When is more than enough, enough?,” host Jane Pauley announced at the top of the segment.

Right - keeping the super-productive from growing wealth to benefit others and (of course) themselves has always worked out so well in the past. Just ask all of the millions who lived such great lives under Stalin and Mao.

[Bayard]

Conceptually yes, you can be too rich, but practical controls on personal wealth would be offensive.

[PeterPrinciple]

Big Govt, Big buisiness and super wealthy are all dependent on each other.

[skeeter]

I’m all out of sympathy for the Warren Buffets, Jeff Bezoses & Mark Zuckerbergs out there. I wouldn’t utter a syllable in their defense.

But I know billionaires aren’t who the Marxist media and their political kleptocratic cohorts are really targeting here.

[bray]

Bet he isn’t giving away half his wealth.

[Bayard]

Indeed, at their wealth they are basically indistinguishable from the aristocracy and ruling class who are loved by Marxists who want to be among their ranks.

[Golden Eagle]

We might one day soon actually see a populist candidate for President who runs on this as one of the main issues of his platform. There’s a lot of people who voted for Trump who might one day vote to take down the Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg types, for example. It would be just further expose that the real fight in this country is not between Republicans and Democrats, but more between those that want their freedom, and those that want to control us.

[JesusIsLord]

Our government reps are owned by super rich oligarchs. There is little chance that the super rich will be taxed like they were in the 40s 50s 60s. We are trillions in debt. A rational way to address the debt is to tax the super rich at the 90% level & simultaneously reduce gov spending by 50% every year until our debt is paid.

[Tell It Right]

Which Jane would you rather get your news from?

Jane Pauley?

Or Jane Curtain? LOL

[No name given]

Done. Along with those of Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, and all of the leftist Hollywood celebrities, athletes and coaches.

[clintonh8r]

My takeaway: Jane Pauly is still around?

[from occupied ga]

Conceptually yes, you can be too rich,

Thank you Karl Marx

[Vaduz]

Good idea it would cripple the democrat party plans.

[from occupied ga]

A rational way to address the debt is to tax the super rich at the 90% level

What an idiotic idea

[rightwingcrazy]

‘Maybe You Can Be Too Rich’
‘Maybe You Too Can Be Rich’

A small shift in a single word transforms the message from one of envy to one of hope.

[CrappieLuck]

So they are not really offended by how much money some people have. They just want to confiscate come of it to fund their Climate Change BS. Not feed the poor, not cancelling college debt, money for illegals or hats for bats or any other marxist wealth redistribution scheme. Nope. it needs to be confiscated and given to government to “Control the weather”.

They never seem to be offended by how much money Government has.....

[setter]

“Right - keeping the super-productive from growing wealth to benefit others and (of course) themselves has always worked out so well in the past. Just ask all of the millions who lived such great lives under Stalin and Mao.”

---

Wait until the Bezos and the Zuckerbergs of the world become autocratic and take away all your rights. We are heading in that direction.

Didn’t Zuckerberg sway the election towards Biden with $millions$$?

[kiryandil]

“Lame” Pauley, postergirl for the too-rich.